the action is against an alien suit can be brought where he can be found and served.74

91. Interstate commerce suits. The district courts are given jurisdiction of suits and proceedings arising under any law regulating commerce.75 No statute makes this jurisdiction exclusive, but from the nature of the cases covered by the interstate commerce act and amendments it would probably be so decided. Instances of such suits are those brought by persons claiming to be damaged by rebating or discrimination," and petitions by the commission to require the attendance and testimony of witnesses, and the production of books and papers, in an investigation authorized by the interstate commerce act.77

and

92. Penalties forfeitures.-The district courts have exclusive jurisdiction of the multitude of suits authorized by federal statutes for the recovery of money penalties and fines, and the forfeiture of property for acts made penal by such statutes.78 Where a fine or penalty is definite in amount the proper suit is a civil action of debt, but when the amount of the penalty or fine is uncertain the action may be either civil or criminal.79 Seizures for forfeiture are always under the admiralty practice.80

74 Barrows S. S. Co. v. Kane, 170 U. S. 100, 18 Sup. Ct. 526, 42 L. Ed. 964.

75 Judicial Code, § 24, Subdivision 8.

76 Ex parte Lennon, 166 U. S. 548, 17 Sup. Ct. 658, 41 Ed. 1110.

77 Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U. S. 447, 155 U. S. 3, 14 Sup. Ct. 1125, 15 Sup. Ct. 19, 38 L. Ed. 1047, 39 L. Ed. 49.

78 Judicial Code, § 256.

79 United States v. Claflin, 97 U. S. 546, 24 L. Ed. 1082; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 6 Sup. Ct. 524, 29 L. Ed. 746.

80 The Caroline, 7 Cranch 496 (U. S.), 3 L. Ed. 417.

Where a criminal proceeding is brought it may generally be by information, although an indictment by a grand jury may also be returned.81

93. Suits on customs debentures.-When merchandise is imported from a foreign country to be here manufactured, and to be exported, it is provided by statute that the collector of customs shall issue to the importer an instrument in writing, reciting that the importer or his assignee is entitled to repayment of ninety-nine per cent of the duties paid upon the importation. This is called a debenture for drawback of duties. Such debentures are made payable to the original importer whenever so requested in writing by the exporter, but not otherwise, and they are assignable by delivery and endorsement of the person receiving the same.82 If the collector does not pay the debenture on demand, the holder may sue the person to whom the debenture was issued or any endorser, and he or the person who pays the holder may sue in the court of claims, or in the district court, if not more than $10,000 are involved, to recover the amount of the debenture.83 The district court has jurisdiction concurrent with the state courts over such suits brought by the assignee of a debenture against the person to whom the debenture was originally issued, or against any endorser thereof.84 When brought in the district court such

81 Criminal Code, § 335, 35 Stats. at Large, p. 1152, U. S. Comp. Stats., 1911 Supp., p. 1687.

82 U. S. Rev. Stats., §§ 3038, 3040.

83 Campbell v. United States, 107 U. S. 407, 2 Sup. Ct. 759, 27 L. Ed. 592.

84 Judicial Code, § 24, Subdivision 10.

suits should be in the district where the defendant resides, subject to waiver as in other cases.

94. Suits for damages against persons enforcing the revenue or civil rights laws.-When any federal officer or other person acts under the revenue or civil rights statutes, and any injury results to him or his property by reason thereof, he may bring suit either in the district court or in the state court to recover damages for such injury.8 Thus, where a person was refused the right to vote at a national election for a member of the House of Representatives he had the right to sue in the district court for damages on account thereof.87

95. Suits for damages under civil rights laws.— Where any person is injured in person or property, or deprived of any right or privilege as a citizen of the United States, on account of a conspiracy to prevent him from accepting any federal office or trust, or from discharging any of the duties thereof, or inducing a federal officer to leave the state or district where his duties require him to be, or injure him in any way, or to prevent him from attending court as a party or witness, or intimidating him as a voter, he may sue in the federal district court or the proper state court for damages occasioned by such unlawful act.s 88

96.

National bank suits.

From the time of the

passage of the national bank act, in 1863, down to

85 Judicial Code, § 51.

86 Judicial Code, § 24, Subdivision 11.

87 Swafford v. Templeton, 185 U. S. 487, 22 Sup. Ct. 783, 46 L. Ed. 1005. 88 Judicial Code, § 24, Subdivisions 12 to 14; Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3, 3 Sup. Ct. 18, 27 L. Ed. 835; Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U. S. 78, 29 Sup. Ct. 235, 53 L. Ed. 410.

1882 suits by or against national banks could be brought either in the federal or state courts, by reason of the national character of the corporation. By the Act of July 12, 1882,89 substantially re-enacted by the Act of 1887,9° it was provided that jurisdiction of suits by or against national banks, except suits between them and the United States or its officers and agents, should be the same as and not other than jurisdiction of suits by or against banks not organized under any law of the United States, and that national banks should be deemed citizens of the state in which they are respectively located. These statutes do not apply to winding up suits against a bank.91 Suits against national banks in any district or territorial court may be properly brought in the district where the bank is established, and in any state, county or municipal court in the county or state where it is located.92 Suits in the district court to restrain the Comptroller from closing the bank may be in the district where it is located. Suits by or against national banks in the district court, where the citizenship is diverse, should be brought either in the district where the bank is located or where the

other party to the suit resides.93 As in other cases, these provisions as to the place of suit may be waived by the parties. Many national bank failures result in a suit against the directors of the bank for negligence. Such suits are brought either by the receiver

89 22 Stats. at Large, p. 162.

90 25 Stats. at Large, p. 436.

91 Same.

92 U. S. Rev. Stats., § 5198.

93 Judicial Code, § 51.

94 In re Moore, 209 U. S. 490, 28 Sup. Ct. 585, 52 L. Ed. 904.

appointed by the Comptroller of the Currency or by the agent who may succeed him, elected by the stockholders of the bank. All such suits arise under federal law, and may be brought either in the state or federal district court.95 They are properly brought in the district where one or more of the defendants reside, subject to waiver as in other cases.

97. Suits by aliens for torts against the law of nations. A citizen or subject of a foreign state may sue either in the state court or in the federal district court, without regard to the amount in controversy, for a wrong or tort which he claims to be in violation of the law of nations or of a treaty of the United States. For instance, a foreigner wrongfully refused admission to this country by the immigration officers may bring suit against the officer excluding him when he has a right to land here under the provisions of some treaty between his own government and that of the United States.96 Such suits should be brought in the district of the residence of the defendant, subject to waiver as in other cases.97

98. Suits between aliens.-It was formerly held that the Constitution did not permit Congress to confer upon the federal courts jurisdiction of suits between aliens.98 Recently, however, the Supreme Court has sustained the jurisdiction of the federal district court of Porto Rico in suits between subjects of the King of Spain."9

95 Yates v. Jones Nat. Bank, 206 U. S. 158, 27 Sup. Ct. 638, 51 L. Ed. 1002.

96 Judicial Code, § 24, Subdivision 17.

97 Judicial Code, § 51.

98 Hodgson v. Bowerbank, 5 Cranch 303 (U. S.), 3 L. Ed. 108.

99 Ortega v. Lara, 202 U. S. 339, 26 Sup. Ct. 707, 50 L. Ed. 1055.